Correo Electrónico
DNINFOA - SIA
Bibliotecas
Convocatorias
Identidad U.N.
Publicado
Barreras y facilitadores de dos proyectos piloto de telemonitoreo dirigido a pacientes con diabetes mellitus 2
Barriers and facilitators of two pilot projects of telemonitoring aimed at patients with diabetes mellitus 2
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15446/rsap.v27n2.118508Palabras clave:
Telemedicina, ciencia de la implementación, diabetes mellitus tipo 2 (es)Telemedicine, implementation science, type 2 diabetes mellitus (en)
Ciência de Implementação (pt)
Descargas
Objetivo Caracterizar el proceso de implementación, barreras y facilitadores de dos proyectos piloto de telemonitoreo dirigidos a pacientes con diabetes melliuts 2 de dos centros de salud familiar, desde la perspectiva de los profesionales de la salud participantes en el programa.
Métodos Investigación cualitativa de tipo estudio de casos. Participaron 22 directivos de salud, gestores, profesionales y técnicos involucrados en esta intervención. Se realizaron entrevistas semiestructuradas y revisión documental. La información se analizó mediante análisis de contenido y temático, guiada por el Marco Consolidado para la Investigación de la Implementación. Este estudio siguió las consideraciones éticas de E. Emanuel.
Resultados Las principales barreras fueron falta de participación en toma de decisiones, planificación deficiente, complejidad del proceso, recursos escasos, conectividad deficiente, vinculación entre dispositivos electrónicos deficiente y plataforma poco amigable. Los facilitadores se centraron en actitudes positivas hacia la intervención y la utilidad percibida para el manejo de las condiciones crónicas.
Conclusiones Las principales barreras detectadas aluden a la gestión del proceso de implementación y aspectos tecnológicos, mientras que los facilitadores más destacados fueron de tipo actitudinal. Esta información podrá ser referente para futuras investigaciones que busquen aplicar herramientas digitales en diversos centros de salud.
Objective To characterize the implementation process, barriers, and facilitators of two pilot telemonitoring projects targeting patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus from two family health centers, from the perspective of healthcare professionals participating in the program.
Methods This qualitative case study included 22 participants: health directors, managers, professionals, and technicians involved in the intervention. Data was collected through semi-structured interviews and document review. The information was analyzed using content and thematic analysis guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Ethical considerations outlined by E. Emanuel were followed.
Results The main barriers included lack of involvement in decision-making, poor planning, process complexity, limited resources, poor connectivity, insufficient integration between electronic devices, and an unfriendly platform. Facilitators were centered on positive attitudes toward the intervention and the perceived usefulness for managing chronic conditions.
Conclusions The primary barriers identified were related to the management of the implementation process and technological aspects, while the most notable facilitators were attitudinal. This information could serve as a reference for future studies aiming to implement digital tools in various healthcare settings.
Referencias
1. Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. Relatoría Especial sobre Derechos Económicos, Sociales, Culturales y Ambientales. Las enfermedades no transmisibles y los derechos humanos en las Américas [Internet]. 2023. Consultado en enero 2025. Disponible en: https://n9.cl/x010l.
2. Ministerio de Salud de Chile. Encuesta Nacional de Salud 2016-2017 [Internet]. Santiago: Ministerio de Salud; 2018. Consultado en enero 2025. Disponible en: https://bit.ly/3HkTvGz.
3. World Health Organization. Global diffusion of eHealth: making universal health coverage achievable: report of the third global survey on eHealth [Internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization. Consultado en enero 2025. Disponible en: https://bit.ly/459HHRd.
4. Ministerio de Salud de Chile. Programa Nacional de Telesalud [Internet]. Santiago: Ministerio de Salud; 2018. Consultado en enero 2025. Disponible en: https://www.minsal.cl/wpcontent/uploads/2018/03/Programa-Nacional-de-Telesalud.pdf.
5. Jimison H, Gorman P, Woods S, Nygren P, Walker M, Norris S, et al. Barriers and drivers of health information technology use for the elderly, chronically ill, and underserved. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep). 2008; (175):1-1422. Disponible en: https://n9.cl/5t9uu.
6. Enam A, Torres-Bonilla J, Eriksson H. Evidence-based evaluation of eHealth interventions: systematic literature review. J Med Internet Res. 2018; 20(11):e10971. https://doi.org/10.2196/10971.
7. Ministry of Economy and Finance Korea. Policy consultation on telemedicine and design of telemedicine models for chronic diseases in Chile. Ministry of Economy and Finance Korea; 2018. Consultado en enero 2025. Disponible en: https://miniurl.cl/9cx6wv.
8. Ministerio de Salud de Chile. Ordinario C51. No.4460: Orientación técnica y metodológica para proyecto piloto de telemonitoreo en pacientes con diabetes mellitus tipo II e hipertensión arterial. Subsecretaría de Redes Asistenciales; 2017.
9. Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009; 4(1):50. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-50.
10. Centro de Salud Familiar Lirquén. Cuenta Pública Participativa [informe técnico]. Lirquén: Servicio de Salud Talcahuano, Ministerio de Salud de Chile; 2018.
11. Centro de Salud Familiar Andes. Cuenta Pública Participativa 2018 [informe técnico]. Santiago: Servicio de Salud Metropolitano Occidente, Ministerio de Salud de Chile; 2018.
12. Abela JA. Las técnicas de análisis de contenido: una revisión actualizada [Internet]. Sevilla: Fundación Centro de Estudios Andaluces; 2002. Consultado en enero 2025. Disponible en: https://n9.cl/nncwl.
13. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006; 3(2):77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
14. Emanuel E. ¿Qué hace que la investigación clínica sea ética? Siete requisitos éticos. En: Pautas éticas de investigación en sujetos humanos: nuevas perspectivas. Santiago: Programa Regional de Bioética OPS/OMS; 2003. p. 83-96. Disponible en: https://bit.ly/3ZQNIyH.
15. Varsi C, Ekstedt M, Gammon D, Ruland CM. Using the consolidated framework for implementation research to identify barriers and facilitators for the implementation of an internet-based patient-provider communication service in five settings: a qualitative study. J Med Internet Res. 2015; 17(11):e262. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.5091.
16. Seljelid B, Varsi C, Nes LS, Oystese KA, Borosund E. A digital patient-provider communication intervention (InvolveMe): qualitative study on the implementation preparation based on identified facilitators and barriers. J Med Internet Res. 2021; 23(4):e25488. https://doi.org/10.2196/22399.
17. Nelson LA, Roddy MK, Bergner EM, Gonzalez J, Gentry C, Lestourgeon LM, et al. Exploring determinants and strategies for implementing self-management support text messaging interventions in safety net clinics. J Clin Transl Sci. 2022; 6(1):e66. https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2022.503.
18. Steinman L, van Pelt M, Hen H, Chhorvann C, Lan CS, Te V, et al. Can mHealth and eHealth improve management of diabetes and hypertension in a hard-to-reach population? Lessons learned from a process evaluation of digital health to support a peer educator model in Cambodia using the RE-AIM framework. Mhealth. 2020; 6:45. https://doi.org/10.21037/mhealth-19-249.
19. Chen WW, Flanagan A, Nippak PM, Nicin M, Sinha SK. Understanding the experience of geriatric care professionals in using telemedicine to care for older patients in response to the COVID-19 pandemic: mixed methods study. JMIR Aging. 2022; 5(3): e33071. https://doi.org/10.2196/34952.
20. Pratt R, Saman DM, Allen C, Crabtree B, Ohnsorg K, Sperl-Hillen JM, et al. Assessing the implementation of a clinical decision support tool in primary care for diabetes prevention: a qualitative interview study using the consolidated framework for implementation science. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2022; 22(1):219. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-021-01745-x.
21. Kooij L, Peters GM, Doggen CJM, van Harten WH. Remote continuous monitoring with wireless wearable sensors in clinical practice, nurses' perspectives on factors affecting implementation: a qualitative study. BMC Nurs. 2022; 21(1):3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-022-00832-2.
22. Kirkland EB, Johnson E, Bays C, Marsden J, Verdin R, Ford D, et al. Diabetes remote monitoring program implementation: a mixed methods analysis of delivery strategies, barriers and facilitators. Telemed Rep. 2023; 4(1):30-43. https://doi.org/10.1089/tmr.2022.0038.
23. Chomutare T, Tejedor M, Svenning TO, Marco-Ruiz L, Tayefi M, Lind K, et al. Artificial intelligence implementation in healthcare: a theory-based scoping review of barriers and facilitators. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022; 19(23):16359. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192316359.
24. Laukka E, Huhtakangas M, Heponiemi T, Kanste O. Identifying the roles of healthcare leaders in HIT implementation: a scoping review of the quantitative and qualitative evidence. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020; 17(8):2865. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17082865.
25. Stevenson L, Ball S, Haverhals LM, Aron DC, Lowery J. Evaluation of a national telemedicine initiative in the Veterans Health Administration: factors associated with successful implementation. J Telemed Telecare. 2018; 24(3):168-78. https://doi.org/10.1177/1357633X16677676.
26. Kujala S, Heponiemi T, Hilama P. Clinical leaders' self-perceived eHealth competencies in the implementation of new eHealth services. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2019; 264:1253-7. https://doi.org/10.3233/SHTI190427.
27. Erlingsdottir G, Ersson A, Borell J, Rydenfält C. Driving for successful change processes in healthcare by putting staff at the wheel. J Health Organ Manag. 2018; 32(1):69-84. https://doi.org/10.1108/JHOM-022017-0027.
28. Gallardo-Zanetta AM, Franco-Vivanco PV, Urtubey X. Experiencia de pacientes con diabetes e hipertensión que participan en un programa de telemonitoreo. Ces Med. 2019; 33(1):31-41. https://doi.org/10.21615/cesmedicina.33.1.4.
29. Sung M, He J, Zhou Q, Chen Y, Ji JS, Chen H, et al. Using an integrated framework to investigate the facilitators and barriers of health information technology implementation in noncommunicable disease management: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2022; 24(7):e37338. https://doi.org/10.2196/37338.
30. Kooij L, Groen WG, van Harten WH. Barriers and facilitators affecting patient portal implementation from an organizational perspective: qualitative study. J Med Internet Res. 2018; 20(5):e183. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.8989.
31. Varsi C, Andersen LF, Koksvik GT, Severinsen F, Paulsen MM. Intervention-related, contextual and personal factors affecting the implementation of an evidence-based digital system for prevention and treatment of malnutrition in elderly institutionalized patients: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2023; 23(1):245. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-09227-8.
32. Whittaker R, Dobson R, Humphrey G, Friedman L. Barriers and enablers to implementation of mHealth programmes. En: Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on eHealth, Telemedicine, and Social Medicine (eTELEMED 2020); 2020 nov 21-25; Valencia, Spain. p. 25-30. Disponible en: https://miniurl.cl/jkykjn.
33. Vonken L, Hussein H, Crutzen R, Vluggen S. Perceptions of Dutch general practitioners towards eHealth for patients with type-2 diabetes: a qualitative study. Fam Pract. 2023; 40(1):91-7. https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmac066.
34. Christie HL, Boots LMM, Tange HJ, Verhey FRJ, de Vugt ME. Implementations of evidence-based eHealth interventions for caregivers of people with dementia in municipality contexts (Myinlife and Partner in Balance): evaluation study. JMIR Aging. 2021; 4(1):e21629. https://doi.org/10.2196/21629.
35. Ware P, Ross HJ, Cafazzo JA, Laporte A, Gordon K, Seto E. Evaluating the implementation of a mobile phone-based telemonitoring program: longitudinal study guided by the consolidated framework for implementation research. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2018; 6(7):e10231. https://doi.org/10.2196/10768.
36. Kimble L, Massoud MR. What do we mean by innovation in healthcare. Eur Med J. 2017; 1:89-91. https://doi.org/10.33590/emjinnov/10314103.
37. Bates DW, Sheikh A, Asch DA. Innovative environments in health care: where and how new approaches to care are succeeding. Health Aff (Millwood). 2017; 36(3):400-7. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2016.1311.
38. Granja C, Janssen W, Johansen MA. Factors determining the success and failure of eHealth interventions: systematic review of the literature. J Med Internet Res. 2018; 20(5):e10235. https://doi.org/10.2196/10235.
39. Hadjistavropoulos HD, Nugent MM, Dirkse D, Pugh N. Implementation of internet-delivered cognitive behavior therapy within community mental health clinics: a process evaluation using the consolidated framework for implementation research. BMC Psychiatry. 2017; 17(1):1-15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-017-1496-7.
40. Helmark C, Egholm CL, Rottmann N, Skovbakke SJ, Andersen CM, Johansen JB, et al. A web-based intervention for patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator - a qualitative study of nurses' experiences (Data from the ACQUIRE-ICD study). PEC Innov. 2023; 2:100110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecinn.2022.100110.
Cómo citar
APA
ACM
ACS
ABNT
Chicago
Harvard
IEEE
MLA
Turabian
Vancouver
Descargar cita
Licencia
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución 4.0.
Esta revista provee acceso libre inmediato a su contenido bajo el principio de que hacer disponible gratuitamente investigación al publico apoya a un mayor intercambio de conocimiento global.
Todos los contenidos de esta revista, excepto dónde está identificado, están publicados bajo una Licencia Creative Commons Atribución 4.0.
